Social Responsibility
Social Responsibility is in essence a part of an ethical mindset. When a person displays an understanding of ethics, in more ways than one they carry a responsible outlook for the community or the society at large. Certain qualities associated with being Socially Responsible include but are not limited to: *Caring attitude towards self and others *Sense of control and competence *Recognition of basic human rights of self and others *Recognition and acceptance of individual and cultural diversity *Understanding of communication, leadership and social skills In a nutshell being Socially Responsible means to have recognition and acceptance of the consequences of each action and decision one undertakes. (Griffith, 2011) Relevance Ok so we have a definition of Social Responsibility, now why is it relevant to IT organisations and in particular employees? Isn't the relevance of Social Responsibilities better left for the psychologists? Maybe, but as employees of Information Systems and Technology many of you may already be a part of the ACS - Australian Computer Society, and a part of the constitution you adhere to about Social Responsibility are evident in the first two rights: #The Primacy of the Public Interest - You will place the interests of the public above those of personal, business or sectional interests. #The Enhancement of Quality of Life - You will strive to enhance the quality of life of those affected by your work. Although they relate to the ACS code of conduct every organisation and their employees should adhere to and work by this code. Difficulty If being Ethically Responsible also carries a Socially Responsible mindset than surely there are difficulties faced when confronted by a situation which involves decisions that affect not just you but also society. The difficulty in facing these decisions are often associated with two different schools of thought. Deontology and Utilitarianism. These two schools of thought both share the common interest of Social Responsibility but address the outcome in two very different ways. Deontology The study of Deontology states "Always act in such a way that you can also will that the maxim of your action should become a universal law" or in words that normal people understand "Act in such a way that you treat humanity, both yourself and others equally and never as a means" This is all well and good when the outcome is of good triumphing evil but what happens when two principles take priority and their duties conflict? Utilitarianism Whilst on the other hand Utilitarianism states that "Given the choice between two alternatives, the morally correct action is the one that produces the most desirable outcome for everyone impacted by our action" or in other words "If the majority is happy by the outcome than it is the desirable choice/decision" Again as Deontology, this is all well and good when the decision/choice is in favor for the majority who are happy but effects the minority which are not happy with the outcome. Just like one of our ethical morals: *Lies are lies even though they may help someone others may be harmed If a decision/choice was made which would make a lot of people happy but harmed others and was based on a lie would it not clash with our Ethical Responsibility? Victorkay89 (talk) 15:49, May 30, 2013 (UTC)